Misplaced Pages

Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jossi (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 7 September 2008 (→Oil and Gas). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:51, 7 September 2008 by Jossi (talk | contribs) (→Oil and Gas)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections Unassessed Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

Initial comments

I added the external link from the main Sarah Palin article; which should hopefully provide some usefull info. Willy turner (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This article contains duplicated material from Sarah Palin and does not add anything new. Merge proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why it was added in the first place. To become the place such information calls home. 71.233.230.223 (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger discussion is over at the Bio article

Go to Talk:Sarah Palin#Merger of political positions article for further discussion. Below items copied to there. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I oppose merging this page with the main page. RobRedactor (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jossi, at the present time - based on the amount of information available now - that there's no point in this separate article. Forks aren't needed if the main article is of a reasonable length, which Sarah Palin is. Tvoz/talk 05:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just a information dump, it should be merged as soon as the information is complete

I understand this was needed as a quick fix for wikipedians to rapidly put as much info as possible after the surprise pick, and while i commend this more or less factual talk page for helping to rapidly add information, it has served its purpose.

To keep any article like this would not be in keeping with encyclopedic structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.97.216 (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The merger discussion on the BIO talk page shows strong interest in not re-merging this article into the BIO. Improving the organization of this article is the relevant task at hand.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If that is the intention, the bio article needs to summarize this article as per WP:SUMMARY. As it stands now is just duplicated material in both articles and unnecessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
To address the original poster, if you look under Category:Political positions of American politicians, you'll see a lot of these articles. It's become a standard device in WP. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of this article

... should be related to her career as a Governor over the last 20 months. Political positions of a mayor of a small town are not notable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Political positions of ..." is the common article name for a bunch of these articles. Positions throughout the careers of these people are included, because they are notable in developing the political philosophy of a notable person. So if for example Palin has a strong anti-taxes position, that started during her mayoralty when she wanted to reduce property taxes, that's notable for here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos

The disproportionate use of military photos has stopped in the main article, but here we still have only military photos. What purpose does having two of them serve, other than to give undue weight to one aspect of the article? One should be deleted. If more photos are needed they should relate to other parts of the article, like schools, guns, or the environment. —KCinDC (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I searched for proper pics but couldn't find any yet. Guess we have to wait till they release some nice recent election-pics I found. --Floridianed (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
They're out. This page doesn't need any photos, unless someone comes up with one of her signing a bill or similar. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Eh, they at least make the article more visually interesting. Go look at Political positions of Joe Biden. Basically just a bunch of decorative images. No reason not to do the same thing here, within reason, just for the sake of balance. Kelly 09:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
No, they are misleading. Right here there are two people who want them out, one wait, and you. Consensus on the main Palin article was nearly to get rid of them. Here, they have even less of a reason. Biden is just standing around in his, and if you like, remove a few of them. Add the official pic of Palin in red. I will remove the miltary pics again, and I expect you to abide by consensus. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There is one "military photo" - a visit with a wounded soldier in the "foreign policy" section. How is this inappropriate? Kelly 13:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think any civilian photograph is fine. One As if anybody will not have been bombarde the last few days with her image. Rpmcestmoi (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NYT reference redundant, misleading, and unreliable

There's a credible source for her position on creationism, evolution, and such from an Alaska news source. It gives her own words. The NYT reference baldly states a position that seems less nuanced and in conflict with her own words. It doesn't give any direct quote, and it uses different language. But it's probably intended to be based on the same original source, since it's a very recent article rather than from the time the comments were made. I suspect they just oversimplified her view. I suggest removing the reference. Parableman (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The NYT seems fine and accurate.Rpmcestmoi (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Parableman is right, it was a poor source compared to the other sources for the paragraph. Kelly 17:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay rights policy vs. gay friends

In this article: "Palin has said she has good friends who are gay." Is this information about Palin's policy? Shouldn't this sentence be in the mail article about Palin under "personal life"? Dkreisst (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

She made that statement in context in which she was stating her position on gay marriage, so it belongs here if it is to be mentioned at all. The political sentiment comes across as "I do not support the persecution of gays but I do not believe they should marry." It's probably not verifiable if it's presented in a personal life context, as weird as that sounds. Switzpaw (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

AIP membership

The section being replaced on the purported AIP membership is inaccurate and incomplete. From the main Sarah Palin article:

Alaska Independence Party

According to officials of the secessionist Alaska Independence Party, Sarah Palin was once a member. The party's stated goal is to achieve "the vote we were entitled to in 1958," namely, a choice among four alternatives: remaining a U.S. territory, becoming a separate nation, accepting U.S. commonwealth status, or becoming a U.S. state. The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream...for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences. They state that Palin and her husband were members in 1994 and attended the statewide convention in Wasilla that year. In March 2008, Palin produced and sent a videotaped message welcoming the convention of the Alaskan Independence Party to Fairbanks.

So first, we only have a claim she was a member, not a confimation. Also, the party has other objectives/alternatives besides "secession". Finally, there's no indication that any of the party's goals are a "political position" of the Governor, since the alleged membership was prior to her political career. I think the entry in the main article is appropriate, but not here. Kelly 03:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this has no place in this article. Serious issues with undue weight and SYNTH. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Polar bear section

The polar bear section needs some WP:NPOV work (I'm off to bed, will work on it tomorrow if nobody else does.) Right now it looks like it was written by an animal-rights organization. By comparison, look at the wolf thing in the next paragraph, which is much more nuetral. Kelly 04:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to either change it or be more specific in your criticism, so it can be discussed. I'm removing the tag. Lampman (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Policy for Israel

While we don't know Palin's direct position on Israel, we do have some information that helps. In an interview back in February of 2008, Palin is seen in her office with a small Israeli flag taped to a window in the background. Also, the Rabbi from Chabad of Alaska made the following statment in regards to Palin, "She’s established a great relationship with the Jewish community over recent years, and has attended several of our Jewish cultural gala events."bigware (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As you mentioned above, we don't know Palin's position on Israel. See WP:SYNTH - we don't try to divine things like that from flags in windows or how she interacts with people of a particular religion. Kelly 05:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, those are not policy statements or votes or anything even vaguely resembling something you'd use to determine a candidate's position for an article. It's nothing about the reliability of the sources — it's that there's nothing there. —KCinDC (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
She met with AIPAC and pledged fealty to support for Israel, as do they all. and of course . Despite these concerns "“Given her record as a hard-right Christian conservative, her embrace of Pat Buchanan, her praise of Ron Paul, and her lack of credentials on foreign affairs, it is likely that her selection would raise serious red flags about the McCain/Palin ticket among Jewish swing voters,” they wrote, asking their members to send out their own anti-Palin emails." Carol Moore 20:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

No Whitewashing of Alaskan Independence Party

This is a part of Palin's past from the time she was a member of the party until earlier this year when she delivered a videotape for that party's convention. Modify if you wish in the interest of further accuracy, but do not delete. Whatever you think of Alaskan independence/secession, the party's views are clearly stated in their platform and accurately stated here.GreekParadise (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the AIP article. This is undue weight for Sarah Palin. Palin could not run for Governor as a Republican while being a member of another party. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to GreekParadise's claim, she (apparently) was a member of AIP only for several years beginning in 1994, and Kyaa is correct that she could not have been elected Gov if she had still been with AIP. However, I strongly disagree with any suggestion that this material is not appropriate to the article. On the contrary, it is highly relevant. Arjuna (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
AIP won the governorship in 1990, so don't necessarily presume she had to leave in order to be successful. Dragons flight (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
A section going "She attended an Alaskan Independence Party meeting in 1994. The Alaskan Independence Party is..." is a blatant coatrack. Is there anything more substantive about this than what is already here? It seems pretty silly to me. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well it depends on what the claim by party officials that she was a "member" really amounts to. If it means she registered with the party, then presumably she supported their core issue. If on the other hand they are calling her a member simply because she attended one convention in her hometown, then that is potentially far less meaningful. Dragons flight (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with calling what GreekParadise has just added a "compromise". This isn't the place for a party manifesto, and you've got to do better than what amounts to the party saying she attended a convention once in order to have such a large section on something that we have no evidence of her political views about. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs in political positions. Her association with the party should be in the main article, but it doesn't tell us much about her political views, especially her present-day political views. The Texas Republican Party has a lot of crazy things in its platform, but very few of its members actually believe all that stuff. And Walter Joseph Hickel was elected governor in 1990 as an AIP member (he'd been a Republican previously) but didn't do anything to move toward secession, as far as I can tell. —KCinDC (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems obvious that Hickel, a life-long Republican, was being an opportunist when he joined the with AIP after losing the Republican primary. By contrast, if the Palins joined AIP early in their careers, when there would have been no political advantage to it, then it would tend to say that they really supported the AIP platform. So, I don't think your analogy really fits. I agree though that whatever her positions were in 1994 need not reflect her current views. Dragons flight (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Party views

The AIP, whose motto is "Alaska First, Alaska Always", challenges "the legality of the Alaskan statehood" and demands a "vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States." AIP's platform "challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote as illegal and in violation of United Nations charter and international law" and has the stated goal of achieving "the vote we were entitled to in 1958," namely, a choice among four alternatives: remaining a U.S. territory, becoming a separate nation, accepting U.S. commonwealth status, or becoming a U.S. state." The party also seeks "the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government." "The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream...for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences."

In my opinion this is too long on its face. Most of the detail of what the AIP stands for should be in Alaskan Independence Party, not here. Can we condense this party description to one or two sentences? Dragons flight (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Working on it now. I was originally trying to include everyone's edits but I'll condense.GreekParadise (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I condensed the political views of the AIP down to one sentence. I realize this may not satisfy everyone, but if the point is to convey that she may have been associated with cessetionists, that seems to be about all that is necessary. Dragons flight (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Despite my personal war of words with Kyaa, I actually have no problem with her most recent editing, although I agree it is wordy. Dragons flight, while I don't doubt your good faith, I fear you have condensed it a bit too much in that you don't say the voting choices nor point out that Palin's 2008 message included some mention of AIP's goals. I hope THIS compromise, a slight addition to your own, satisfies most.GreekParadise (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't read this section before moving and editing the section! Hope you agree it's better placed. And not WP:undue. And of course we'll all be waiting to see what she herself, as opposed to "the McCain campaign," says about the issue. Also I believe there may be party registration records somewhere. Anyway, all the secessionists and a bunch of libertarians are excited about it :-) Carol Moore 19:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
There are indeed records out there: here. Coemgenus 20:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Updated info - final info should be included so it does not look like Misplaced Pages editors are trying to cover something up. One example of such info, if not necessarily the best: Sarah Palin's ties to Alaskan Independence Party are played down; The McCain campaign denies his running mate supports the party's separatist bent. By Michael Finnegan Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, September 3, 2008:
she was not a member but she has cheered the work of AIP...according to its website, "its primary goal is merely a vote on secession."... "Keep up the good work," Sarah Palin told members of the Alaskan Independence Party in a videotaped speech to their convention six months ago in Fairbanks. She wished the party luck on what she called its "inspiring convention."... her husband, Todd, was a member of the party for seven years...McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said Palin did not support secession...He sidestepped the question of whether she favored a statewide vote on secession. Carol Moore 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
No coverup because there's nothing to cover up. The media got pwned by the AIP and printed an unverified/false story. She wasn't a member, period. Or should we use the times that she talked to Democrats as an indication that she's a secret Democrat? :) Kelly 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jury Rights

Removal of section on this reverted with cleanup of the sentence structure. It is not just the commemoration of an anniversary. It represents support for the position of the Fully Informed Jury Association and opposition to current prevailing judicial practices, which attempt to control jury verdicts, especially in favor of the prosecution in criminal cases, by such methods as requiring jurors to swear to follow the "law" as given by the judge, even if the law is in dispute, and denying the right of the parties and their lawyers to argue issues of law in the presence of the jury. These judicial practices are in conflict with those that prevailed in the Founding Era, and are regarded by jury rights activists as unconstitutional. The proclamation is an indication of a tendency to adopt an originalist or constitutionalist position on constitutional issues.Bracton (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

On Contraception

I do not feel right referring to Palin as just "pro-contraception." She's quoted as against the teaching of contraception in schools; that's anti-contraception. Even if she supports contraception in other ways, that would give her a mixed record, not a pro-contraception record. Do we have any quotes or other actions describing how she has supported contraception? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? How is being against teaching it in schools at all the same as being against it? Is being against teaching religion in schools the same as being anti-religion? -- Zsero (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a poor analogy. Teaching religion in schools begs the question of which religion to teach; whose religion is supported and who gets left out? There is no such issue with contraception, except in the minds of conservatives who think the best way to prevent teenagers having sex is to keep it as dangerous as it was a century ago.
Aside from her promotion of abstinence-only eduation, I have to wonder why a 44-year-old woman who obstensibly supports the use of contraception just had a baby. Surely she knew how risky it is at that age. Tualha (Talk) 11:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Taxes?

Come on, there must be something to put here. Even if she has avoided making statements that would tie her down later, she has a record. Homunq (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Status section

If this is a political position of hers, I would like to see a source. All I see is one person claiming her membership of the AIP, when she has actually been a Republican for over 20 years. I've pulled the section in question until we can get a source for her position. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Business Daily?

Commented out alleged quote from this, as it appears to be from Atlantic Monthly, but haven't been able to confirm it there, either. The Alaska Business Daily site doesn't have anything since 2004. Someone needs to investigate this further before putting any of it back in.Bracton (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Teen mothers

I removed a section on "support for teen mothers", which simply identified that she had vetoed a particular line of funding for a particular facility. Nothing there on a "political position", it was apparently a budget decision. Kelly 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been readded in a different incarnation. I neutralized it somewhat, although the title and wording still could use tweaking. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I need to so some more research on this. Found a primary source that the funding for the facility actually increased via some other budget classification. Looking for a good reliable source that shows that info. Kelly 17:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
See below. Probably best do keep out until a better 2ndary source found. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd go along with that. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"prominent member of Feminists for Life"

Note that the citiation for the above is a blog article which attacks Palin for her connection to Feminists for Life" -- the phrasing "prominent member of" coming from a comment (by OldSarg) beneath the attack article on the blog. SUGGESTION: Find a citation in a more neutal (and substantial) source which can confirm Governor Palin's public embrace or distancing from Feminists for Life. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: "Feminists for Life's policy is that all memberships are confidential. However, since Governor Palin has been public about her membership, we can confirm that Palin became a member in 2006." (new emphasis added/P77) Source cited is The Anchorage Daily News published August 6, 2006 (will verify) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have already inserted a proper reference from a reliable source (CNN). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Much better. However, this is a reference quoting the Feminists for Life vice president in announcing their support for her candidacy after Monday's announcement of her daughter's pregnancy. SUGGESTION: Consider finding source that confirms Palin says she's a member. (NOTE: does (in summary, not direct quote) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not exactly clear why the timing of the source, or finding Palin's own words, are important. The fact that the source is considered reliable should be sufficient to confirm her membership. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is Political positions of Sarah Palin -- i.e, stating a membership as a "political position" implies she embraces the positions of the organization. It is therefore important that her confirmation of membership (and whether she accepts all the organization's positions as her own, or differs from some) comes from her in the context of representing her political positions as candidate for vice president of the United States. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, I am not clear why we cannot imply from her membership of FFL that she supports the organization's positions in a broad sense. But if you want to go and find a more explicit source, knock yourself out. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Let it stand for now. The McCain/Palin folks can change it if Governor Palin chooses not to affirm the connection in the campaign. (sotto voce) Talk to Jane Roberts. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


a member since 2006

Google Palin "member since 2006" (e.g.,: New York Times) NOTES:

  • Feminists for Life has no exceptions (for rape, incest, or preserving life of mother).
  • The Republican Party Platform has no exceptions (for rape, incest, or preserving life of mother).
  • Governor Palin supports an exception only for the life of mother
  • Senator McCain supports exceptions for rape, incest, and life of mother.
  • (Senator McCain does not intend to fight for a platform change)
  • NOTE: Feminists for Life was (may still be, was in 2003, but no longer highlighted on website since 2005 -- and some previous members have left for that reason) an organizational member of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. People may certainly be Pro-life and support capital punishment, however, the founding principles of Feminists for Life framed both abortion and capital punishment as violence which the organization opposed. The organization's relatively recent shift in policy (or emphasis) allows compatibility with the Republican Party Platform. The date of Governor Palin's membership is, therefore, salient. As a supporter of capital punishment (in appropriate cases) Governor Palin could not, in good conscience, have joined Feminists for Life prior to 2005, and she didn't. A QUESTION REMAINS as to whether a membership should be asserted (especially so prominently) as a political position, when her position differs from that of the organization. NOTE: Her difference with the organization is asserted in the next sentence -- without an appropriate "however." (Ah, just walked into that one.)
THE POINT: The first sentence (second fact) in the entire list of Political positions asserts her membership in Feminists for Life, which may be inappropriate emphasis on that fact (given the givens). (And, is the "promotion value" for FFL gained by this prominent highlighting appropriate, given that Governor Palin's position is not identical with the organization?)
RELATED POINT: Is that during the confirmation of John Roberts as the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, his wife's membership in Feminists for Life caused some concern in 2005. (Is the membership assertion--gaining the rhetorical benefit of the word "Feminists" in some quarters--worth the complications of the connection? That's up to the McCain/Palin campaign.
(Just noticing without comment: 2005.)
THEREFORE: (SEEMINGLY) PICAYUNE SUGGESTED EDITS:
  • (1) Include mention of 2006 (more significant than you'd think),
  • (2) work in an awkward "however" (regarding difference in positions)
  • (3) OR, consider less prominent mention of Feminists for Life membership as a Political position -- or lose it. (NOTE: Should be decided by McCain/Palin) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
edit made: Inserted 2006 as membership start, and changed cite to more general article in the New York Times. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is domestic drilling in foreign policy section?

Sounds like someone is trying to beef up her foreign policy cred by posting it in there. ANWR, while foreign-sounding, is actually in Alaska. Alaska is a U.S. State. Also, the visit with the U.S. soldier looks all too much like a photo-op and has no relevance to foreign policy positions.

I vote for removal of these two sections. 66.160.120.185 (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the ANWR stuff. I think the soldier shot is probably legitimate though. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the ANWR stuff is still in the foreign policy section though... 69.255.249.205 (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion wording

There have been a lot of edits saying that Palin is opposed to abortion, "even in cases of rape and incest". The source actually says Smith said Palin is opposed to abortion, but believes an exception should be made if the health of the mother is in danger. The "rape and incest" terminology is only used by other people. This seems like loaded POV to me, and redundant to Palin's statement. Kelly 11:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • We don't just quote Palin; she is a primary source. The secondary sources say her position is no abortion even in caes of rape and incest 621 times (by Google news hits). An article on some artist would not just say what he says his art means, but also what the critics say it means. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added an additional reliable source that specifically uses the rape/incest wording, and tightened up the sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Rape, incest, and risk to the mother's life are the three main categories of exceptions that categorize the positions of pro-life politicians. For example, McCain favors all three exceptions. So being explicit about her position at the risk of some redundancy is justifiable in my view. (At least on this page - maybe not in her bio.) T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are three references (3,4,5) following sentence containing the claim that Palin favors an exception when the mother's life is in peril. The last link (5) is not an active. I can find nothing in reference (4) related to making an exception when the mother's life is in peril. Reference (3) is a quote of someone claiming that is her position. I think it is important to have a clear and working reference to a quotation of her, stating this is her position, or that it is not.74.65.216.221 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Covenant House

WaPo indeed reported that she'd cut Covenant House's funding 20%. Trouble is, it isn't true. CH's funding had been $1.2M. It asked for an additional $10M for an expansion, and the legislature gave $5M, which Palin cut to $3.9M. That's not a cut in funding, it's a 325% increase, instead of the 516% increase that the legislature voted.

PS to forstall arguments: a blog is not a reliable enough source to assert a fact in WP, and the evidence the blog presents can't be included directly because of SYNTH, but we also can't assert facts we know not to be true, just because they appeared in a so-called RS. -- Zsero (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(comment from previous editor of that section) While I would normally question the reliance of that blog over an RS about a factual did-it-or-didn't-it happen issue, I found the WaPo article to be of disappointingly low quality, with it's selective quoting, misleading factual juxtaposition, etc. I almost was thinking WTF was with that article, but didn't double check with other sources. So while some might split hairs that we really don't know it not to be true, as we are really taking for granted that source, I agree it best to keep it out, unless someone wants to reword in a way that's both accurate and relevant. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually we do know it not to be true, because the blog links to the primary sources, which we can examine for ourselves. But that can't go into the article, because of SYNTH. -- Zsero (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel

Hmmm. Apparently a reporter has synthesized a belief about Palin's Israel position based on a flag sticker in her office and her church attendance. Exactly how is this a political position stated by a candidate? Kelly 05:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this an article on Palin's positions as stated by her? Or an article on Palin's positions as reported by other reliable sources such as the mainstream press? NPOV 101? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I would say that removing verifiable material from the article by appealing to WP:REDFLAG, is not an appropriate course of action. Care to explain how WP:REDFLAG applies here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I would hate to tag this article with {{POV}}, Kelly. Please consider restoring the material that is sourced to a WP:RS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only a "reporter", Kelly. From the same source you deleted: Mrs. Palin's brand of evangelical Protestantism is especially well-disposed to the preservation of Israel for biblical reasons, said Merrill Matthews, an evangelical Christian and a Dallas-based health-policy specialist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's get some additional opinions. That has to be one of the crappiest Times articles I've ever seen. The reporter is divining an opinion on Israel from a flag sticker and a church "expert"? Please. This is just part of the media feeding frenzy. Got another source to back that up, maybe something will a little more believeable substance, like maybe Palin's own statements on Israel policy? This is just silly. Kelly 05:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not think you will find any "own statements on Israel policy" by Palin, as probably that issue was not on her desk till this week. I would argue that at this point, and regardless of the "crapiness" assessment, that material is relevant and well sourced. I welcome additional opinions, but reverting sourced material and then talking does not sit well with me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, you've seen the general level of bad reporting this week. Mainstream papers even reported some BS about her belonging to a secessionist party, without verifying it, turns out they had been totally pwned. And other mainstream sources were carrying the Trig Trutherism meme. Please find something else to back up this claim besides an obvious stretch of a story like this. And that is per WP:BLP. Kelly 05:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
That has got to be the crappiest sourcing I have ever seen. This Matthews character is an evangelical Christian (like about 25-30% of USAns) and is therefore an expert witness on what Palin believes? Because, like, every evangelical believes exactly the same thing, and every one of them is an expert on those beliefs. What did this reporter do, go out on the street and ask people whether they were one of these whatchamacllem, evanjelikels, and would they like to answer a few questions about their strange cult? Not that what he said is bad, but his views are simply of no relevance to this page. -- Zsero (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The relevant bit of the source would seem to be this:
Tucker Eskew, who holds the title of counselor to Mrs. Palin in the McCain-Palin campaign, left no doubt where she stands. "She would describe herself as a strong supporter of Israel's, with an understanding of Israel's fear of an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons," Mr. Eskew told The Washington Times.
Is that not a statement of a position on Israel (albeit through a spokesman)? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"Crapiest" is not a distinction we make in Misplaced Pages. See WP:V. Section tagged as non neutral due to the deletion of sourced material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
A tag! Oh noes! Anyway, we certainly have a right to judge whether a particular piece published by a normally reliable source is utter nonsense, which this "source" is. Kelly 14:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with this part's neutrality currently. Neither do I see an issue with returning the thesis of the source which was previously stated in the first sentence: "The ] reported that ] faith drives Palin's pro-Israel view". It was some of the rest of the content, e.g., "despite not visiting" or whatever which while perhaps true, was a snarky strawman. While without a doubt this is an RS, I think the objection is that we are under no obligation to report any particular thing from any RS (especially snarky strawmen; see too the above comments about the Washington Post's pathetic coverage of her budget decisions...), only to use them to write a good article. I see no problem with returning just my first quote above, (the title of the source article, actually) as is is declarative and about as neutral as you can get. We do make the distinction of crappiness here, but it is an editorial issue in this case.
C'mon folks, we're here to write an encyclopedia. While much focus has been made about being an "encyclopedia" (vis-a-vis "news") -- we need to focus as well on "write". Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
(More) Would I be right to assume that returning just this part would render the tag moot, since the source was represented now, albeit in a (purportedly) better way? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I have implemented your compromise wording and removed the tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, who gets to decide what reported from a reliable source is "utter nonsense" and what isn't? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

<- I'm pulling the statement per WP:BLP, because the source is utter bullcrap, and the statement in the article gives it more credence than it should ever be given. There are about ten different idiotic memes that POV-pushers have been flogging; this is the "Dominionist" or "Crazy Christian" meme. Kelly 14:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, with all due respect, you are misusing BLP and REDFLAG, in addition to be edit-waring. I do not see how that helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I can cut Kelly a break because of the perceived BLP issue, but then go on record to say I disagree with that interpretation as applied to the compromise. Since the source is reliable (remember reliablity ≠ truth, for better or worse), I guess any such BLP objection would be if the material is controversial; I fail to see how it is, if presented fairly. Those memes, while hidious, are based in some contorted way on the innocuous but pretty undeniable grain of truth that she is a Christian. And the relationship which the content purports is actually not that uncommon amongst some of them. The issue is to present things fairly, and to write well in doing so. I favor returning the compromise, in lieu of Kelly (or anyone) explicitly describing the objection better. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, you can try your hand in witing for the enemy. Here are some more sources on the subject:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly's procedural sledgehammering aside: the source is utter barrel scraping nonsense. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian and the Wall street Journal are also barrel-crapping? Ahem. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian piece is an op-ed. The WSJ piece is about her church, not her. Kelly 16:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Complete synthesis and guilt by association. Even if the reports about what some of the people at a particular church may think or believe are true, this is no way equals a "political position" by one of the people there. In regards to my specific removal of the compromise, it was factually inaccurate in addition to being a BLP violation. The Times did not report that her policy position was influenced by evangelical beliefs, the Times reported that some guy thought her policy position was possibly influenced by those beliefs. That's a world of difference. The previous version implied that the statement was fact-checked or verified, when the source clearly reveals it was not. Kelly 15:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that you need to read WP:NPOV and WP:V. In Misplaced Pages we report facts and opinions as published in reliable sources, regardless if these are "guilt by association", "crappy" and other such value judgments about the validity of these opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I will be re-adding the POV tag, please do not remove it until the dispute has been resolved. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
And I think you need to read WP:BLP, especially the part about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary sources. Lots of people don't believe all the doctrine their religion publishes. For example, Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle are Catholics, but they oppose the Catholic Church's position on abortion. We don't try to imply in their articles that they're possibly anti-abortion because their church is. We don't print unverifiable speculation about people's possible beliefs, we only write about their statements, or their actions. Since Sarah Palin has apparently not implemented any policy decisions about Israel, and has apparently said little about the matter, there's just not much there in regards to her political position on this issue. And we are not going to speculate about a controversial issue in a high-traffic BLP. Kelly 16:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I would strongly prefer not readding the tag because 1) currently it is not POV 2) I still think a better solution would be to augment it with the compromise sentence, or something similar. I haven't myself since I don't wish to wheel-war (esp. with Kelly, whose editing I respect considerably). And also, really, what is the rush? Over the next few weeks so much more will come out about so many things, and eventually an accurate balanced statement or statements about what informs her positions on Israel can be done. While I do disagree with Kelly here, I acknowledge there is no WP:DEADLINE, and trust eventually this can work. So let's de-escalate.
Aside to Kelly, What is the analogy to Daschle et al? And what is so controversial about this? I am really missing something, or am I? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Daschle analogy was just an attempt to demonstrate that we don't attempt to attribute all of the doctrine of a religion to the individual members of that religion. The "controversial" part is that öne of the Memes of the Day for POV-pushers seems to be "Sarah Palin, Dominionist" - that article will explain the background. It's a guilt-by-association attempt that has turned up over the past couple of days in several places. It's one of about 10 different memes the left-wing blogs are fanning. Kelly 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Kelly, this is an attempt to paint her as being pro-Israel only because her religious beliefs require Israel to exist for the Rapture. Just because someone attends a specific church does not equate them to believing every tenet of that church, to do so is in violation of synthesis of material. And just because this source is trying to make the synthesis doesn't mean that it automatically a verifiable fact about her. These spurious links really need to be reigned in and left to the tabloids. Arzel (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
That's as may be, but is the source valid for the quote from a campaign advisor that she would be pro-Israel? Perhaps something on the order of "A campaign official has characterized Gov. Palin as 'a strong supporter of Israel...'" ? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fyi, according to a WaPo article she met with AIPAC on Tuesday. The article says "Palin assured the group of her strong support for Israel, of her desire to see the United States move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and of her opposition to Iran's aspirations to become a nuclear power, according to sources familiar with the meeting." and quotes the spokesman of AIPAC as saying "We had a good, productive discussion on the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and we were pleased that Governor Palin expressed her deep, personal commitment to the safety and well-being of Israel," and "She also expressed her support for the special friendship between the two democracies and said she would work to strengthen the ties between the United States and Israel." Perhaps this will help. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is good to state Palin;'s views, and it is necessary for NPOV to describee other opinions, such as these of the mainstream press, advisers. etc. This is a WP article that describes all competing views, not just hers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"Other opinions" does not include fringe nonsense, or idle speculation with bubkes for real sourcess by reporters who should know better. Kelly 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A candidate assuring AIPAC of their strong support for Israel is not especially groundbreaking, but probably worth noting in the relevant section here. The Alaskan Jewish community (or at least a few of its leaders) have praised Palin. The Jerusalem Post notes that Palin is "completely unknown" in Israel, and references "Palin's obscurity, her lack of any record on Israel, or even statements on Israel issues," (), but suggests that Israel's leadership still seems comfortable with McCain-Palin.

This is a reasonable source for the article. One could argue about how much weight to assign it or how to incorporate it, but dismissing on WP:BLP grounds because, in one's editorial judgement, it's "one of the crappiest Times articles I've ever seen" is an abuse of WP:BLP. I'm with Baccyak4H - I would favor returning a single sentence noting: "The Washington Times reported that evangelical faith drives Palin's pro-Israel view." As more is published - and more will be published - on the subject, it can be augmented or replaced with more detail, but at present it adds reasonably sourced content to a sparse section of the article and I see no WP:BLP issue. WP:FRINGE is completely inapplicable to this situation. MastCell  17:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That is factually inaccurate. The Post reported that some guy speculated that evangelical faith drives Palin's pro-Israel view. Kelly 18:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not think any part of this Washington Times article deserves mention on this page. It is absolutely uninformative as to her policy position on Israel. And that includes her spokesman's bland statement. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I took the liberty of changing MC's edit to only include the single sentence, as that seemed his intent, as well as I thought the extra sentence did subtly steer into POV waters. Back at hand, this argument against mention at all actually has more traction, than any BLP one. I disagree that it is absolutely uninformative, as (from the article), she is hardly unique in having such reasons for that position, and this allows for context. But this is an editorial justification which does have some merit. Rewording that it was from the spokesman seems like a totally uncontroversial change, regardless of other factors. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The article used as a source has absolutely no basis for connecting her views on Israel with any religious beliefs. It's complete and utter speculative bullcrap. The major papers have lost their minds lately, I don't know what the hell is going on. The New York Times printed a story that she was a member of a secessionist political party, and it turned out to complete bullshit. Any news articles used as sources for the Palin BLPs need to be examined with a critical eye until those people regain their sanity. Kelly 19:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"Bullcrap" or not, you cannot editwar your way out of seeking consensus. Warned you about 3RR violation on your talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one source, and will be more as time evolves. These two can and should be used as well:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the Guardian piece is an op-ed, and the WSJ piece is about her church, not her. Kelly 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? And what is this if not from Palin: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country," Gov. Palin said, in a video of the talk posted on the church's Web site. Pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure we're praying for: that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel - break 1

Well... in the WSJ piece, Palin's spokesperson specifically says that reporters should look at Palin's church as the last word on her religious beliefs ("I think talking about where she worships today and how she characterizes herself speaks for itself about where she is today on this issue.") So yes, the article is about her church, but apparently that's because her people have asked that her church define her views. I think something on the topic is relevant - Palin's faith has been presented by the campaign as a significant part of her political persona. What's more, we're talking about the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times, two outlets which lean significantly to the right - this isn't Daily Kos we're citing here.

In the interest of moving forward, could we clarify the objection to a single sentence sourced to the Times: "An article in the Washington Times reported that Palin's pro-Israel view was driven by her evangelical faith"? Do you think this should be phrased differently? Do you think that a reliable source dealing with the role of her faith as it pertains to Israel is unworthy of inclusion? You've suggested the latter, citing WP:BLP, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:FRINGE, but I'm not clear on how any of those policies apply to the Times article. MastCell  22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Combining the campaign spokesman's statement with the church's views really, really looks like synthesis to me. That's one of the reasons that I'm citing WP:REDFLAG here. It's extremely unlikely that a national political candidate would have a "political position" on a major issue of foreign policy based strictly on what a small-town church says. The source simply isn't good enough to support a controversial claim like that. For something as hot-button as this, you would need multiple reliable sources. Also, the phrasing of the proposed edit makes it sound like the Times verified and fact-checked this claim, when really they're just quoting someone's opinion (and it's not even clear from the article exactly whose opinion this is). In addition, as Governor or Alaska she did not need to have a position on Israel - presumably now as a candidate her position on Israel is that of the McCain campaign or the Republican Party platform. Kelly 23:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In addition, as Governor or Alaska she did not need to have a position on Israel - exactly. So if we quote her on the meeting with the Israeli lobby, we can and should quote what is known about her positions as expressed elsewhere. (Disclosure: I am not an American citizen; I am Jewish; I lived in Israel for 13 years; I was in the Israeli army and fought one of its wars. So, please do not dismiss my contributions as if I was a "POV pusher". I would ask that you take a hard look in the mirror). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking in the mirror - hey, I'm looking good! :) But, seriously, "her positions as expressed elsewhere" need to be ultra-reliable for a controversial claim like this because it's simply incredibly unlikely. I won't re-iterate my other arguments from above, but they still stand. Why must this claim be in the article immediately rather than waiting for a more unambiguous and less controversial source for the assertion? Kelly 23:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess I don't see this source as particularly "controversial", except in that you don't agree with it. Kelly, the campaign spokesperson's comment was combined with the church's views by the Washington Times WSJ, not by me. It's not original synthesis, it's a synthesis explicitly performed by the source. This is not an "exceptional claim" in the sense that it requires exceptional sources. Palin has expressed a generally pro-Israel position to AIPAC, and the article suggests that her faith may drive that view, quoting an expert on the relationship between evangelical Christianity and support for Israel. That is arguable, maybe, but it's hardly a WP:REDFLAG claim like achieving cold fusion or something. I understand your concern: while the article's headline is pretty unambiguous, the actual conclusion is attributed to the quoted expert. Would you prefer alternate wording which made this more evident? MastCell  23:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Mastcell, I have read and read that WSJ article. It says absolutely nothing about U.S.-Israel relations or Palin's policy toward Israel. And I have read the Times article maybe ten times now and I still cannot figure out exactly who is saying that Palin's policy toward Israel is religion-derived. It's a masterpiece of vagueness. What am I missing in that article? Kelly 23:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
My fault for mixing two articles/discussions at once. The WSJ article is simply about Palin's church. The Washington Times article is the one dealing with Israel. That article quotes Merill Matthews, described as an evangelical Christian and health-policy expert, describing aspects of Palin's denomination and its relationship to Israel. On the second page, Paul Erickson, a Republican strategist, is quoted as saying, "The essence of neoconservatism is the protection of Israel - a shared priority with evangelical Christians." Presumably these people were interviewed and quoted because they have some relevant expertise on the matter at hand. I agree the article is not particularly well-written - I'm rarely impressed with the Washington Times' work in that regard - but it is what it is. MastCell  03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
So essentially Matthews is only talking about Palin's denomination, not Palin herself. How does that equate to a Palin policy on U.S.-Israeli relations? As I mentioned way up the thread, we don't automatically attribute every tenet of a religious doctrine to all of the religion's adherents, cf pro-choice Catholics. The Erickson quote also has nothing to do with a specific Palin policy. It's all just speculation and chattering. Kelly 14:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
No, of course we (Misplaced Pages editors) don't attribute general religious tenets to specific people. But if the Washington Times (or another reliable source) does so, then we reflect that. I agree it's speculative - most of the coverage of Palin's religion has been speculative, because the campaign has simulataneously made it a centerpiece of her persona and refused to go into any detail about it - but speculation from a reliable source is not the same as speculation by a Misplaced Pages editor. MastCell  23:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
These are not controversial sources, unless you believe in a wide left-wing conspiracy. :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

More sources:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, those pieces are either op-eds or say nothing about Palin's position on U.S-Israeli relations. Kelly 23:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I just say by-the-by that the idea that The Guardian speaks for McCain supporting American Jews is absolutely laughable. That is just my POV of course and purely parenthetical. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From doing some searching, it seems like "evangelicals are pro-israel" is a well-known fact, so I guess inferring from her evangelicalism that she is pro-israel isn't that controversial of a statement. But I thought she was a non-denominational christian. That's what the article Sarah Palin says (with two references). So is she evangelical? If not, then the basic assumption of the Washington Times articles is wrong (I mean, it's titled "Evangelical faith drives Palin's pro-Israel view") and thus doesn't provide a very good reference. RobHar (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Balance

This article has the potential to become a POV fork, unless a multiplicity of viewpoints (and not only Palin's own) are presented as per WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is wide precedent for these articles being constructed in this way, see Political positions of Barack Obama, Political positions of John McCain, or more generally Category:Political positions of United States presidential candidates, 2008. Oren0 (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
That article is all based on published sources, as it is here. No difference. We are quoting what secondary, publish sources say about the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

If supposedly experienced editors are tossing 3RR warnings at each other, you clearly have a dispute. Page protected for 24 hours. GRBerry 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate, GRberry. If there are peopple edit-warring, warn them and if they persist, block them. I will post a complaint about this action at WP:AN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I looked at the history. If I'm going to block anyone, you will be one of the ones blocked for edit warring. I think protection is better. GRBerry 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
??? I have not edit warred. I have tried to implement proposed compromises, and there is an active discussion. Posted an AN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Potential" POV fork my eye!

If this is a potential POV fork, I'm a bowl of petunias! It isn't a potential fork, it is a fork, pure and simple.

As far as I can see, this page has only been created as a means to get around the protection on the main page about Palin.

Just as soon as it is unprotected, it's going up for AfD.

Mayalld (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's a spinout article, which was created after a discussion at Talk:Sarah Palin. It's a content fork, of which we have many. Kelly 15:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Economic policy/issues

How come there is nothing about her Economic policy/issues? There is a fair amount of information on her budget and financial positions in the Sarah Palin#Budget section. Halgin (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a section on it. Halgin (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Rape and incest

As far as I know the situation of a baby being conceived because of rape or incest has not been a factor in American law since Roe v. Wade. An anti-abortion person would not use this expression in explaining her views. It is only used by pro-choice people, and then (it seems to me) in a kind of "boiler plate" way. I think the expression should be removed from the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The section also goes into more detail when she is asked about her own daughter so no real need for the cliche, "rape or incest." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Since many pro-lifers do make the exception, the reliable sources have to keep saying it (a Google News search gets 1680 hits for it) and so do we. It can hardly be a BLP concern, right? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Phlegm Rooster. Furthermore, Sarah Palin is running with someone who has said that he wants Roe v. Wade overturned, so assuming Roe v. Wade will stay a law seems inappropriate. And regarding anti-abortion people using this expression, you can check out pastor hagee's FAQ on the subject, where he explicitly addresses the question. I even found a list of talking points on another website. It's clearly a position one can take, and she has been very clear about her position, so it should be included. RobHar (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it then. But the information about Palin's views are much more clearly and strongly given in the next sentence when she is asked about what if it was her own daughter. I do feel that many people use the expression "rape or incest" without taking the time to think about what it really means. If a young girl is raped by a close relative that should be called rape. If two adults have consentual sex and they are closely related that has nothing to do with rape. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Add Section: Stem Cell Research

I propose adding this section which can go under either Social Issues or Legal Issues:
Stem cell research
Palin has stated that she opposes stem-cell research, a position in contrast to that of her running mate, John McCain.
I'm open to input on whether we want to include the fact that her position on this issue differs from McCain's. Even without the McCain statement, it's an important issue to cover in this article. --Crunch (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It would make sense to include her position on stem cell research. The articles you cite do state her position but don't really say how they know that that is her position (unless that 9 minute long youtube video in the DFP article has that quote, but it might be good to say where in the video it occurs for ease of verifiability). It might be better to supplement your two sources with a more direct detailed source. For example, your phrasing says she has stated that she opposes stem-cell research, but neither of the articles say that. I think it's always better to include why it is known that someone has a certain position. I think the best that could be done with your sources is something like "The WSJ reports that she is against stem-cell research". Cheers. RobHar (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Clicking on the reference is sufficient for a reader to understand that it is the Wall Street Journal or the Detroit Free Press that is reporting it. The latter has never been the standard on Misplaced Pages. A better solution would be to note the actual original source, such as the interview or public speech at which she stated her opposition, which may be hard to find. Until then, I think the article can stand with a citation like as I originally proposed.--Crunch (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Upon looking around, it looks like the original source of any of this is an Anchorage Daily News article from the day after election day 2006 . This article simply states " stem cell research (opposed)". I would be for including "In November 2006, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Sarah Palin opposes stem cell research". I don't think we can make a stronger statement than that for the moment. Again, there's no evidence of her stating this position, let alone a quote. Sometimes journalists infer a position from a related statement, and we only find out later that they were wrong. RobHar (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll buy that. Maybe it will come up in the debate and she'll address it herself. In the meantime, we can use it with the prefance, The Wall Street Journal Reported ..." if the article ever opens up for editing again, that is. --Crunch (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So the new section would be:
Stem cell research
The The Wall Street Journal and other publications have stated that Palin opposes stem-cell research and that her position is in contrast to that of her running mate, John McCain.

I'll make the change. I just realized that despite the gold Full Protection lock icon, the page is open for editing. --Crunch (talk)

New Section Request: Censorship

There is no mention of Sarah Palin's stance on the Freedom of Speech and Censorship in this article despite the fact that she attempted to fire the Wasilla town librarian after the librarian made clear that she would refuse to remove books from the town library.Palin asked Wasilla librarian about censoring books. This story has been extensively reported on and I was surprised not to find it here already. I request the creation of a new section under legal issues entitled Censorship or Freedom of Speech (preferably at the top of the list since the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I also request that this article's protection level be downgraded to semi-protected immediately before wikipedia becomes synonymous with the term prior restraint. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty heavily discussed at Talk:Sarah Palin. I'm afraid it's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be, the evidence shows she was asking on behalf of constituents and that no books were removed or "banned". Kelly 17:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Cdogsimmons, the protection on the article is a one day long protection due to alleged edit warring and is not related to some indefinite protection from all editing. The protection "expires 20:57, 6 September 2008" according to the edit summary. RobHar (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that a long ago non-action constitutes a "position." Hopefully the info in question will be added to the main article shortly and thus won't be needed here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ThaddeusB, attempting to have someone fired for their defense of freedom of speech is not a "non-action". It shows intent and purpose. It delineates Sarah Palin's attitude on an issue, where little else is known. The issue appear to me to be relevant in both the main page and here. I therefore, again respectfully request an IMMEDIATE inclusion of this issue in this article. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking past each other? Did you check the discussion/sources at Talk:Sarah Palin or are you just looking at some blog meme? Kelly 19:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
SHOUTING demands is not likely to help your cause around here. Oren0 (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, it didn't look like presenting evidence and "respectfully requesting" seem to be working. Kelly, I quoted my own source from the Boston Herald above. Oren0, as the first administrator to respond, I'll ask you, again, respectfully, please add the information concerning Sarah Palin's attempt to fire a librarian after she refused to censor library books. It is noteworthy and well sourced. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at Sarah Palin#Wasilla, the incident is discussed there. I'm afraid it just doesn't stack up to a "political position". Also, the issue is being discussed at Talk:Sarah Palin#Proposed change to Wasilla section. Kelly 20:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, actions speak louder than words. Just as one might include John McCain's vote in favor of invading Iraq on his page, Palin's discussions with a librarian about banning books, the librarian's subsequent refusal to ban those books, and Palin's subsequent attempt to fire the librarian for "not fully supporting her" are extremely telling. More information is obviously needed to fill in Palin's record concerning the First Amendment, but I've found this reported incident to be relevant. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Cdog, but your opinion is synthesis and original research. Even the source you cite does not claim that the book thing was the reason the librarian was threatened with termination. Kelly 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The cause of the attempted firing is unproven and at this point irrelevant. What is relevant is asking a librarian whether she would be willing to censor books. I have added the information.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
And I have removed it per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Please don't, Cdog. Kelly 21:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
For everyone's reference this was the edit. It doesn't mention the firing, only the three times Sarah Palin asked a librarian "rhetorically" whether she would censor books. I am not one to edit war, so I will reach a consensus about this first.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you re-read my edit and WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. I do not see the violation. My edit says 'In 1996, as mayor of Wasilla, Palin asked the city librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, three times if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so. Palin later called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas." I believe I covered both the claim and the response and the incident clearly deals with the title heading Censorship.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
And how is that a "political position" on censorship? Kelly 22:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Censorship is a political issue concerning the limits of freedom of speech (for example, certain areas of speech that have historically not been considered to come under the aegis of The First Amendment like obscenity, defamation or incitement). Governor Palin's actions in repeatedly questioning a librarian about banning some books indicate a willingness by the Governor to ban some library books. You might call that original research in determining relevance. I would call it common sense.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no solid reason to believe that the firing was related to the books issue. For starters, Ms. Emmons and 3 others were asked to resign before the incident even occurs. Emmons was strong supporter of the previous mayor and Palin had run on a platform of change. If you want to assert wrongdoing, I find it highly more likely that Palin was acting in revenge for supporting the former mayor than in revenge for not banning some books. In any case Palin backed down when Emmons assured Palin of her support. Here is a link to the period article - note that it doesn't even mention the books thing: --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I will also state that asking a question either as "how would one go about removing some books if the need arose?" or as "how would you feel about removing some books that some have objected to as having bad language?" (both paraphrases) does not constitute a political position, esp since SP herself called the question rhetorical way back when this happend. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. If a new President asks the Secretary of Defense "How would I go about launching nukes at Russia?", that does not mean he/she is in favor of nuclear war. (Hyperbolic analogy, I know.) Kelly 21:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, to make an even more gratuitous comparison, if a convicted pedophile goes up to a small child on three different occasions and says "How would you like to have sex with me?" it's only rhetorical? It appears to me that Sarah Palin had serious control over this woman's career and that she was brave enough not to flinch at Palin's repeated suggestions that censorship is ok. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
No. But asking on three seperate occasions indicates a willingness to launch under certain circumstances. Likewise, in this situation, Governor Palin may actually hate the thought of banning books, but the fact that she brought it up with one librarian on three seperate occasions indicates that she is willing to ban some library books.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Cdog, that's simply your opinion. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. But your gut feeling about this doesn't belong in a high-profile article about a national political figure. Kelly 22:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal, hardly a bastion of white wine sipping liberals writes that Palin "floated the idea of pulling books she considered offensive from a local library." I don't think it's mere speculation to go from that statement to thinking that Governor Palin has a willingness to have certain books in the library pulled because she considers them offensive.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This has gained some traction in reliable sources. That said, I agree with Kelly: this is not a "political position", but a single incident from over 12 years ago which involves some degree of he-said-she-said. I lean toward thinking this may be notable somewhere on Wikipeda, given the widespread coverage it's gotten, but I don't see how it's a "political position" of Palin's or how it would fit in anywhere in this article. MastCell  23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It involves her duty as an elected representative to uphold the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and her interpretation of that duty. Judging from her actions, I would say, her political position 12 years ago appeared to have been that certain books made available to the pubic by a public library were subject to being censored based on her own personal standard of offensiveness. If she came out tomorrow and said "I think that certain books in the library should be censored" or "I think there shouldn't be any censorship of library books at all" you wouldn't have a problem putting that on this page. Her actions should speak louder than words.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, if she came out tomorrow and said so, then it would be a political position of hers. Right now it's just a somewhat murky action from many years ago. If she's ever made available to actually answer questions from the media, then maybe it will be elucidated. 'Til then, I don't see a place for it here. That's my 2 cents. MastCell  00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Is your issue that this happened 12 years ago or that Palin didn't come out and say, "I support banning certain books in the library." Do you not see what I see from her actions? Because when Palin approaches a librarian on three separate occasions and asks her how she feels about banning books that Palin thinks are offensive, I see a willingness on Palin's part to ban books that she (or her constituents) think are offensive. The timing shouldn't matter. So maybe you think this is WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH (the reasons Kelly gave when he removed the info) but no one's spelled out why it fais those tests (I didn't make this information up and I got it all from one reputable source, the Boston Herald). So maybe you think the problem is relevance to her political positions. I would say that this incident has been covered extensively in the press and blogosphere because of the way it presents Palin's views. Just check out this group. This issue matters to people. It matters to me. If no valid reasons are given why this actually does fail WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH or relevance, I will restore the information. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In case those other sources don't work for you, the New York Times wrote here that Anne Kilkenny said that Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at a city council meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My issue is that this is not a "political position" that Palin is currently taking; it's extrapolating what her political position might be based on a hazy incident from many years ago. I know you're not "making it up"; I've read the sources, and formed my own opinion of them, as have you - but I don't see this story as relevant to this particular Misplaced Pages article. I'll let other people comment from here on. MastCell  00:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the info belongs on Misplaced Pages and suggested adding it to the main article. However, it is not appropriate for this page - to claim a political position from a single ambiguous event is unfounded speculation. (It will receive far more views in the main article anyway.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's speculation. See the above NYT article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is to insert the information, not in the legal issues section, but in the social views section. Although I still think that the First Amendment is implicated, the social issue of Censorship may be more predominate.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow up

Although Misplaced Pages may not have provide information regarding Palin's stance on censorship, the rest of the internet will. The following can be found at http://www.politico.com/static/PPM106_palin_doc.html under the heading Censorship:

Palin Supported Bill Letting Parents Know what Library Material Their Children Have. Palin wrote, “As a mother of four and a former mayor, I support SB 269’s allowance for public and school libraries’ consistent policies and giving municipalities liberty to address the issue. Perplexing SB 269 opposition, attributed to a public librarian, was based on fear that parents may wield an “iron glove” if given freedom to know their kids’ business.”

Palin Asked City Librarian About Censoring Books, Insisted It Was “Rhetorical.” In 1996, according to the Frontiersman, Wasilla’s library director Mary Ellen “Emmons said Palin asked her outright if she could live with censorship of library books.” Emmons said, “This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy…She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can’t be in the library.” Palin said in response, “Many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature.”

Fiscal Conservatism and Earmarks

Sarah Palin claims that she is a fiscal conservative, but there is no mention of her record on that fiscal conservatism. All these other minor stories should be secondary to her record. That record should be part of this article. Instead of it being "topical," why not put it into what she says she is: proof of her fiscal conservatism argument. The bridge to nowhere and the hiring of paid lobbyists for earmarks are both important to that argument. --165.123.227.162 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fiscal Policy

Sarah Palin describes herself as a fiscal conservative. In her acceptance speech in front of the Republican National Convention, Governor Palin stated, "I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary." Governor Palin did slash the federal budget by $231 million last year. The $231 million in cuts - which covered 36 spreadsheet pages - drew praise from those who believed the budget originally reflected too much spending, but ire from those who thought Palin went too far. The FY2009 Palin budget request, including all funding sources and the capital budget was $8.496 billion for a state of roughly 670,000 persons according to a 2006 Census Bureau Estimate. That's $12,680 per capita, or $51,000 for a family of four. No other state is close to this level of state government spending.

Palin employed a lobbying firm, Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, said an analysis by an independent government watchdog group. As the new mayor of Wasilla, she began going to Washington to ask for more earmarks from the state's congressional delegation, mainly Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens, Republicans. The lobbying firm initially was paid $24,000 a year, an amount that increased to $36,000 in 2001. According to a review by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group, Wasilla benefited from $26.9 million in earmarks in Palin's final four years in office."When she got more involved in what these programs were, she has taken a strong and consistent stand against them and she's actually exercised what they estimate to be the largest line-item veto in Alaska state history," McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer told CNN. "I think what all that shows is that when you get in the governor's seat, where you have to do trade-offs."

In her acceptance speech, Governor Palin also said, "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere." While it is true that funding was never sent to build the bridge to nowhere, it was accepted by Alaska and allocated to different projects in the state. Additionally, Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere."

--165.123.227.188 (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Pretty unbalanced as a description of fiscal policy per WP:NPOV. Certainly some mention of the earmarks might be appropriate (it's already discussed in Sarah Palin#Wasilla) but it's hardly her fiscal policy position. For example, she vetoed a pretty large amount of spending by the Alaska government. Kelly 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say it was balanced; I'll leave it up to the rest of you guys to make it more "reasonable." I think including that she cut millions off the budget is fine, but if you are, you might want to include what CNN said on top of that - her federal budget is increasing at a rate of 10% per year so it's not like the budget is getting any smaller. No one looks under Wasilla when they are looking at a page on her political positions. Fiscal policy is directly related to earmarks because they are, as John McCain himself puts it, a form of wasteful spending that a fiscal conservative should never accept. Perhaps my description of her fiscal conservatism just happens to bring up the unfortunate truth: she's not that huge of a fiscal conservative when it comes to her record. --165.123.227.188 (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Certainly some people have that opinion, while others have a different one, but a political positions page really isn't a place for opinions, unfortunately. Kelly 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Which is why people like you are here. First I'd say that the things I am posting are more facts than opinions. It is a fact that she supported the bridge to nowhere. It is a fact that she hired lobbyists. It is a fact that she has obtained earmarks. If you wish to include items that will make this seem more reasonable, that suits me just fine. What I'd prefer not to do is for nothing to get done at all and this sit on the discussion page. --165.123.227.188 (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
From the WP:NPOV page: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. That being the case, my opinion is completely valid as long as it can be backed up by valid sources.
I have removed certain portions of it that I found to be unnecessary and added additional sources to back the statistics of the original sources --165.123.227.188 (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...it always makes me scratch my head when people insist that unbalanced information must go into an article right now, and it's up to other people to add other information later on to make it match WP:NPOV. Kelly 07:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, what I said, if you read it correctly, was that I don't want that. To avoid having my words twisted around, I'll quote myself: "If you wish to include items that will make this seem more reasonable, that suits me just fine. What I'd prefer not to do is for nothing to get done at all and this sit on the discussion page." If you find something that I wrote is biased, then specify exactly what you think is wrong and not make generalities about how "unfair" I'm being. Then I could actually do something to change it. Unfortunately complaining doesn't help either one of us, does it? --165.123.227.188 (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like user 165.123.227.188 is trying to be reasonable. He appears to have a certain knowledge (and sources) of facts and has placed them here on the discussion page. He's recognized it may be unbalanced, but perhaps his knowledge only lies on one side of the issue. One editor shouldn't have to explain all sides of every issue, that's why this is a collaboration. The collaborative nature of wikipedia is what makes it successful. Most wiki articles go for long amounts of time being poorly weighted, but it doesn't matter because it's not about something important or related to a popular person, and then the article gets improved over a matter of months and slowly builds into a balanced accurate article. I recognize that that kind of unbalanced appearance shouldn't appear in an article on a living person for any period of time, but expecting every editor to come up with a bunch of balanced facts is a bit much. And this user didn't place his paragraph in the article, but rather on the discussion page, which I think shows some pretty good faith. As I read the current economic section in the article, it looks unbalanced in view of the facts now included here. It is all favorable. Certainly she doesn't have a perfect record as a fiscal conservative. RobHar (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I'm more than willing to admit there may be additional information out there that shows a more balanced viewpoint of Palin's fiscal conservatism. If it is out there, include it. Unfortunately I am not privy to that information, just the information I have presented through researching her record as Mayor and Governor. I have also added an additional source and statement by the McCain campaign trying to explain why she went for those earmarks. --165.123.227.57 (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Link To John McCain's Positions

For some reason, I am not allowed to add a link to Political positions of John McCain to the page. It should be near the top, and say something like, "...more conservative than John McCain, whose positions can be found at Political positions of John McCain." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.89.151 (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with this. --165.123.227.188 (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The Political positions of Joe Biden article doesn't link to the positions of Barack Obama, or compare the two. —ADavidB 13:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oil and Gas

Booksnmore4you has suggested some edits which have been reverted several times. This seems like the place to discuss it. Let me start the ball rolling by saying that I oppose these insertions because: - There already exists a paragraph about the beluga whale. - The quote from the Sierra Club member lacks context. - The quote from The Independent is editorializing. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, per T0mpr1c3 above. Kelly 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggest you decide where the beluga whale belongs.
  • Suggest you discuss how to contextualize the Sierra club content.
  • Suggest you determine whether the Independent content would be better if sourced another way, or if it is better rephrased.
  • do no blindly blank it. Booksnmore4you is a newbie, do not bite him or her by blindly removing their addition. Be polite, AGF, and do NOT run roughshod over them. This article will be here for a while; it is a work in progress; but Booksnmore4you may stay and become a valued contributor or leave forever based upon your (so far, so shoddy) treatment. Focus and perspective, people. KillerChihuahua 20:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
My perception is that you are acting aggressively. I'm not going to write your edits for you, neither am I going to blow past 3 reverts to delete them again. But unless you back them up on this page they are going to be taken down time and again, because repeatedly slapping up the same edit without any justification makes you look like a mindless vandal. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) ::: You, Kelly, and Booksnmore4you are dangerously close to busting 3RR. Now: you and Kelly are not newbies, and should know better. As for Booksnmore4you, he should be informed of the 3RR policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Correction: Actually Kelly already violated WP:3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Did she? I miscounted then, I made it out that she stopped just shy - gaming the system perhaps but not actually at 4 or more reverts. Good catch - thanks, Jossi. KillerChihuahua 20:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly reverted Booksnmore4you 4 times, and Cdogsimmons once. And this is a pattern, not an isolated case:
  1. 10:29, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236184244 by 88.233.54.200 (talk) - change to match the source")
  2. 11:27, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236214109 by 88.233.54.239 (talk), redundant, obvious")
  3. 11:32, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236216251 by CengizT (talk) - this is what the source says")
  4. 11:36, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236216669 by CengizT (talk) - the source does not say that, see talk page")
  5. 11:39, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236217085 by CengizT (talk) odd deletion")
  6. 11:41, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236217372 by CengizT (talk) - DISCUSS ON TALK")
  7. 05:12, 5 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Israel */ rm per WP:REDFLAG, see talk")
  8. 14:46, 5 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Israel */ rm per WP:BLP")
  9. 18:34, 5 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Israel */ rm per WP:BLP")
  10. 21:21, 6 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236727315 by Cdogsimmons (talk) - this is not a policy position, see talk")
  11. 08:26, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ not a place for random opinions")
  12. 08:28, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ needs attribution")
  13. 08:39, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "the Indepedent's opinion is not a "political position"")
  14. 08:41, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ redundant whale stuff, see "Endangered species" below")
  15. 08:48, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ reword whale thing")
  16. 08:49, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ whoops, redundant clause")
  17. 08:50, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ minor grammar fix")
  18. 09:17, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ tense")
  19. 16:33, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236886555 by Booksnmore4you (talk) - take it to talk")
  20. 16:37, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Booksnmore4you; Unexplained removal of content.")
  21. 18:52, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ not neutral, we don't do random opinions, and redundant to "Endangered species" below. Make your proposal at talk page")


No, I'm an admin who doesn't even edit this page, who is telling you to learn to work with others, or you'll get blocked. I'm not asking you to "write my edits for me" - I have no edits to this article. I merely undid your newbie-biting and reversion of good-faith edits by another editor. Now, you can learn from this, or you can piss on my toes. Your call. Let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Good-faith edits are fine...but even if that edit is good-faith and violates policy, it has to be removed, especially on a high-profile article. Kelly 20:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have not broken 3RR and I do not intend to, I am merely following WP:BRD. My problem in doing so is that it seems to take a fair bit of arm twisting to get any discussion on these edits. I've made my position pretty clear. So in all good faith: what is the justification for these edits? I'm all ears. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent):Kelly, the edit in question violates no policy, so your point is baseless. And both of you should know that you can be blocked well before technically violating 3RR. If you are counting, you are missing the point of the 3RR policy. KillerChihuahua 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a side note - KC, I know perfectly well that you have a problem with me because I've criticized the IDCab, you've stated it before. I already figured it was just a matter of time before the Intelligent Design Wikiproject showed up on the Palin articles, but please don't try to play "uninvolved admin" here. If you would like to block me, bring it. Kelly 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Please keep this at the bottom of the page for easy access. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. http://alaskapodshow.com/index.php/2008/02/20/my-visit-to-juneau-alaska/
  2. http://lubavitch.com/news/article/2023848/Alaskas-Jewish-Community-on-Palin-Selection.html
  3. ^ Free Press Staff (2008-09-05). "Sarah Palin primer: Who she is, where she stands". The Detroit Free Press. Retrieved 2008-09-06. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Cite error: The named reference "stem1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/story/9090623p-9006670c.html
  5. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02000.html
  6. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/palin-record-on-fiscal-re_b_123532.html
  7. http://www.startribune.com/politics/27791154.html?page=1&c=y
  8. http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/09/04/data-points-sarah-palins-lobbyist.html
  9. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/02/politics/washingtonpost/main4406403.shtml
  10. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/09/palins_earmarks_spark_question.html?hpid=topnews
  11. http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html
  12. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/31/politics/horserace/entry4401789.shtml
Categories: